CPAC Straw Poll Results

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
121

[quote]UtahLama wrote:

I am a proponent of individual liberty and I have a problem with laws like the Unruh Civil Rights Act being used MUCH more broadly than was originally intended.[/quote]

I’d prefer to see the Supreme Court take one of these cases, as it did the Hobby Lobby Case. Here’s why: these are all state laws tied to commerce and public accommodation of private commercial entities or state mandated anti-discrimination laws. The Free Exercise Clause is a core tenet of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. What makes the issue murky is the fact that it involves public accommodation where commercial business transactions are concerned, plus you have the dilemma of whether or not to allow state commerce laws or state anti-discrimination laws to override the Free Exercise clause, or put another way, does free exercise of one’s religion outweigh someone’s right to not be discriminated against?

Furthermore, there’s also the issue of having some bureaucracy sort it all out - who or how will it be determined that a refusal of service is based on a protected religious belief versus a carte blanch discrimination that is not tied to a protected religious tenet of one’s own faith?

122

[quote]JR249 wrote:

[quote]UtahLama wrote:

I am a proponent of individual liberty and I have a problem with laws like the Unruh Civil Rights Act being used MUCH more broadly than was originally intended.[/quote]

I’d prefer to see the Supreme Court take one of these cases, as it did the Hobby Lobby Case. Here’s why: these are all state laws tied to commerce and public accommodation of private commercial entities or state mandated anti-discrimination laws. The Free Exercise Clause is a core tenet of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. What makes the issue murky is the fact that it involves public accommodation where commercial business transactions are concerned, plus you have the dilemma of whether or not to allow state commerce laws or state anti-discrimination laws to override the Free Exercise clause, or put another way, does free exercise of one’s religion outweigh someone’s right to not be discriminated against?

Furthermore, there’s also the issue of having some bureaucracy sort it all out - who or how will it be determined that a refusal of service is based on a protected religious belief versus a carte blanch discrimination that is not tied to a protected religious tenet of one’s own faith?
[/quote]

I have no problem with any of this.

125

[quote]JR249 wrote:

[quote]angry chicken wrote:
I imagine it wouldn’t feel any different than any other asskicking I ever got… Why? Care to address my point? For the record, I am VERY pro “do what ever the fuck you want”. That includes fags marrying each other. I fully support it and have protested FOR that right. Standing arm and arm with a crowd of fags. Are you taking issue with my use of the term, “Fag”? Cuz that’s what all my gay friends call themselves. Or is that word going the way of “nigga”, where ONLY black people can say it? You know how liberals like to control and censor language (but protect free speech as long as it doesn’t affect THEM) TBH, I don’t give a fuck…
[/quote]

You can do whatever you want, but it is a pejorative term that is generally thrown around as a way to demean homosexuals. I never hear any of my gay friends use the term, so no, in this part of the country it’s not case where gay men or women use the term, as some African-Americans use the term “nigga,” whereas those who are not part of the social minority group cannot use the word without causing offense. I don’t see the point in using the term when it’s generally just a pejorative slur, especially one that has been used in a hateful, hurtful manner towards many homosexuals for much of their lives. Why use a word, just because you can, if it’s typically associated with hate or disrespect?
[/quote]

It’s funny, because I have used that word TONS of times on this forum. But most of the time I’m arguing FOR gay marriage, or FOR gay rights or FOR equality for homos. No one has ever blinked an eye. But the minute I suggest they find a fag-friendly baker, someone threatens to kick my ass. LMAO

Why do I use it? Fag has three letters, homosexual has 10 letters - it’s shorter. And it like to tweak the nose of liberals who like to control and censor language, so I find pleasure in arguing passionately about equal rights while using a term that offends them. I have a twisted sense of humor, what can I say.

But in all seriousness, I have gay friends that call each other fag all the time in playful banter. I’ve playfully called several of them fag. No one ever got bent out of shape. But they know me and know I don’t give a shit about who’s dick they are sucking.

126

[quote]angry chicken wrote:

It’s funny, because I have used that word TONS of times on this forum. But most of the time I’m arguing FOR gay marriage, or FOR gay rights or FOR equality for homos. No one has ever blinked an eye. But the minute I suggest they find a fag-friendly baker, someone threatens to kick my ass. LMAO
[/quote]

This is presumably because most pro-gay marriage people on this forum don’t want to waste time arguing with you over the language you use, not because they condone the use of the language itself.

127

Angry Chicken : My Sincerest Apologies, killerDIRK.

128

[quote]countingbeans wrote:
End of the day, Bush has the ability to fund raise to actually compete in the primary. Paul doesn’t, and neither does Cruz.

I don’t know about Walker, and Carson is pissing into the wind. (He’s a good conservative mind, but his stance on the 2nd is too much for me to vote for him.)

It’s going to be Jeb and Hilary, and Hillary is going to win in a “landslide” according to the MSM, while the popular vote is like 60% of the able voters and a 3% swing. And I’m fine with this. The Economy is garbage right now, and we’re looking at hard times. I don’t mind the Democrats taking the heat on it. [/quote]

Haha. I like a guy who can cut through the horse shit.

I’m not sure who takes it from the Republican side. Jeb has the support of Shelden Adelson so will have all the money he’ll ever need to run his campaign. I just don’t know though. Third Bush plus RINO reputation. But then who else is going to challenge him? Everyone has warts. Walker would be eviscerated in the media b/c he’s spineless. I know that’s a cliche adjective now but I don’t know how else you can describe him.

If I called the shots it would be Rand Paul, but he’s unlikely to survive until the end. I would have liked to see Paul Ryan run and see what he would have to say, but he’s shrewdly biding his time. Smart guy. Ultimately the Republican field stinks. Please no liberal/democrat insults. I’m not happy about the ancient retread combination of Biden and Hillary running on the other side either. The rest of the world must wonder how the hell we stay on top.

129

[quote]magick wrote:

[quote]angry chicken wrote:

It’s funny, because I have used that word TONS of times on this forum. But most of the time I’m arguing FOR gay marriage, or FOR gay rights or FOR equality for homos. No one has ever blinked an eye. But the minute I suggest they find a fag-friendly baker, someone threatens to kick my ass. LMAO
[/quote]

This is presumably because most pro-gay marriage people on this forum don’t want to waste time arguing with you over the language you use, not because they condone the use of the language itself.[/quote]

I don’t like the term “fag” used to degrade gay people. It really isn’t that difficult to say gay-friendly baker, and it would make the original point more legitimate. B/c although I disagree, it is a fair argument. But once you drop in “fag” it makes you look immature and not to be taken seriously. I’m not ragging on you AC, I realize we’re on T-Nation and not in a public square.

I think it’s a great word, though. I would never use it in polite company or around strangers, only people I’m very familiar with. But it’s a good word and the less people use it to degrade gay people, maybe one day it can be an accepted word again without gay slur connotations. It’s the perfect word to describe someone that’s super lame, sensitive, and loud about it.

130

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:
One guy we haven’t discussed is Rubio. He did not do well in the CPAC poll and I think we can safely assume it’s because of his amnesty position.

Nonetheless, he has some impressive features.

What do you think?[/quote]

Much like Obamacare, in a general national election, amnesty has become a third rail.

It’s perfect storm for Democrats to hammer anyone against it. The GodKing himself with his magic awesome pen signed one, and they can turn around and say “Reagan did it too”. Much like Obamacare… Irrelevant how it polls, that shit is here to stay. So I understand both Rubio’s and Bush’s stance on amnesty. (It’d be cool if they could come up with some sort of alternative that made these folks earn citizenship rather than just “hey, you broke the law, but so do we so fuck it”. )

The uninformed legion that votes based on 30 second sound bites during commercial breaks of Daily Show and Duck Dynasty decide elections. The Democrats have a much stronger coalition in this area and a far superior ground game, due to the unban population density. (That and all the dead and multiple voters they have on their side.)

Republicans have a massively steep uphill battle in national elections. Thankfully they have a solid grasp on the House, and can make inroads in the Senate. Unfortunately they fuck that up in practice, but one can hope and dream I guess they will stop being Democrat Lite, or just completely dropping the ball. [/quote]

I love the focus on reality in this post.

131

[quote]UtahLama wrote:

[quote]magick wrote:

[quote]UtahLama wrote:

The point is…they were sued because of their religious beliefs…and the GOV ruled they had too do it. Is that fair?[/quote]

Is it fair to force people to serve black people?[/quote]

So if I went into a bakery owned by a gay couple with a t-shirt that said “fuck you faggot” and said I wanted them to bake for my wedding.

You would expect them to have to do it?

The black lunch counter argument is played out. Gays are not a protected class, and nobody should be forced to work against their religious beliefs…which ARE a protected class.[/quote]

I don’t even know how to answer your hypothetical. That’s a good one.

As far as bakeries, I just don’t see how it’s infringing on anyone’s religious beliefs. I can buy the argument for not forcing a Catholic priest or Muslim iman (I’m guessing an iman does the marriage?) to offer a holy sacrament and unite two gay people in marriage. But baking a wedding cake, which is completely ancillary and has nothing to do with the Christian tradition of marriage, I just don’t see how that’s forcing anyone to act against their religious beliefs. To me it’s discrimination and mean spirited. Would a proper Christian reject charity to a poor and needy gay person, while offering it to non-gays? Not in my opinion.

But if I were gay, I’d just freaking go to another baker and give that establishment my money and positive word of mouth.

133

[quote]BPCorso wrote:

As far as bakeries, I just don’t see how it’s infringing on anyone’s religious beliefs. I can buy the argument for not forcing a Catholic priest or Muslim iman (I’m guessing an iman does the marriage?) to offer a holy sacrament and unite two gay people in marriage. But baking a wedding cake, which is completely ancillary and has nothing to do with the Christian tradition of marriage, I just don’t see how that’s forcing anyone to act against their religious beliefs. To me it’s discrimination and mean spirited. Would a proper Christian reject charity to a poor and needy gay person, while offering it to non-gays? Not in my opinion.

But if I were gay, I’d just freaking go to another baker and give that establishment my money and positive word of mouth.[/quote]

The argument from the religious side is that, where an actual wedding ceremony is concerned, the union of same-sex couples is sinful and not acceptable in the eyes of God. Hence, by forcing a commercial proprietor whose religion (generally Christianity in these cases) specifically recognizes the aforementioned interpretation of scripture to be true to provide a service for a same-sex wedding ceremony (e.g., photos, baking a cake, flowers, lodging for a honeymoon - all of these are actual examples around the country that have gone to court), you are forcing that person to become complicit in a sin, which then puts the believer in a serious, potentially sacrilegious moral and spiritual conundrum.

I have not actually heard of many cases where a business owner tried to use this argument to deny basic retail services to gay customers, just more specifically any service that would make the owner(s) complicit in an actual civil union or a gay marriage. In fact, many of these businesses routinely served gay customers otherwise, so long as the product or service was NOT required as part of a civil union or marriage.

134

[quote]UtahLama wrote:

So if I went into a bakery owned by a gay couple with a t-shirt that said “fuck you faggot” and said I wanted them to bake for my wedding.

You would expect them to have to do it?

The black lunch counter argument is played out. Gays are not a protected class, and nobody should be forced to work against their religious beliefs…which ARE a protected class.[/quote]

Protected classes are not set in stone- I don’t know how this is much of an argument.

As for your hypothetical- That’s sort of my point. If we go by the logic that the gay people go by, that no one should be denied service even if their beliefs/actions offend the service-giver, then clearly the gay baker needs to serve the guy who is wearing homophobic clothing.

And yet I’m pretty sure most gay people would say I’m really really wrong.

My belief towards the whole thing is that it’s one giant double-standard and dependent far more on emotions than actual clear-headed belief in rights and freedom and such.

(I don’t want to post anymore on this because I’m coming really close to derailing this thread…)

135

[quote]BPCorso wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:
End of the day, Bush has the ability to fund raise to actually compete in the primary. Paul doesn’t, and neither does Cruz.

I don’t know about Walker, and Carson is pissing into the wind. (He’s a good conservative mind, but his stance on the 2nd is too much for me to vote for him.)

It’s going to be Jeb and Hilary, and Hillary is going to win in a “landslide” according to the MSM, while the popular vote is like 60% of the able voters and a 3% swing. And I’m fine with this. The Economy is garbage right now, and we’re looking at hard times. I don’t mind the Democrats taking the heat on it. [/quote]

Haha. I like a guy who can cut through the horse shit.

I’m not sure who takes it from the Republican side. Jeb has the support of Shelden Adelson so will have all the money he’ll ever need to run his campaign. I just don’t know though. Third Bush plus RINO reputation. But then who else is going to challenge him? Everyone has warts. Walker would be eviscerated in the media b/c he’s spineless. I know that’s a cliche adjective now but I don’t know how else you can describe him.

If I called the shots it would be Rand Paul, but he’s unlikely to survive until the end. I would have liked to see Paul Ryan run and see what he would have to say, but he’s shrewdly biding his time. Smart guy. Ultimately the Republican field stinks. Please no liberal/democrat insults. I’m not happy about the ancient retread combination of Biden and Hillary running on the other side either. The rest of the world must wonder how the hell we stay on top.[/quote]

Just to add to what BPC said.

In my opinion…beyond Hillary…the DEMS really have no-one. I don’t see Elizabeth Warren going much of anywhere…

And Joe Biden? Please. “Killer Joe” would probably stick his foot in his mouth 10 times just at his announcement to run.

What is sad is that even though the GOP has greater numbers running…their field is still awfully weak.

Again…this all should be very interesting.

Mufasa

136

[quote]BPCorso wrote:

[quote]magick wrote:

[quote]angry chicken wrote:

It’s funny, because I have used that word TONS of times on this forum. But most of the time I’m arguing FOR gay marriage, or FOR gay rights or FOR equality for homos. No one has ever blinked an eye. But the minute I suggest they find a fag-friendly baker, someone threatens to kick my ass. LMAO
[/quote]

This is presumably because most pro-gay marriage people on this forum don’t want to waste time arguing with you over the language you use, not because they condone the use of the language itself.[/quote]

I don’t like the term “fag” used to degrade gay people. It really isn’t that difficult to say gay-friendly baker, and it would make the original point more legitimate. B/c although I disagree, it is a fair argument. But once you drop in “fag” it makes you look immature and not to be taken seriously. I’m not ragging on you AC, I realize we’re on T-Nation and not in a public square.

I think it’s a great word, though. I would never use it in polite company or around strangers, only people I’m very familiar with. But it’s a good word and the less people use it to degrade gay people, maybe one day it can be an accepted word again without gay slur connotations. It’s the perfect word to describe someone that’s super lame, sensitive, and loud about it.[/quote]

I have a very dear, close friend of mine from the Subcontinent that uses it constantly in reference to cigarettes ala UK slang: “let’s go burn a fag”. He does this in public, in bars, wherever.

I am to this day surprised he has never gotten punched in the face, despite the fact that it’s a completely unrelated term.

As to the rest, all you need to do is read enough of Angry Chickens posts to realize he likes to do it on purpose to confuse and frustrate people. As he said, he has a twisted sense of humor. More than that though, his post styles are very rant-like and always have been. Not that I’m criticizing, everybody needs to blow off steam and I use this forum in much the same way, albeit different words haha.

137

JR,

Great posts in the last couple pages.

138

Mufasa,

Re: Hillary challengers/replacement, Jim Webb. He has many disadvantages, but he can present himself in an unusually unique place: a moderate who can attack Hillary from the “left” on national securitt and economics. He is a former Secretary of the Navy who wrote/writes extensively about the dangers of military adventurism (especially critical of the action in Libya, which will be a big deal in '16), and presidential unilateralism. He also has anti-Wall Street bona fides and is making economic inequality for the middle class a focus, on which he can savage Clinton and appeal to progressives and independents.

He has no machine and loathes fund-raising, but I think he wants the job.

139

As for CPAC, the fourth most popular candidate - Dr. Carson - has, in the space of two days or so, claimed publicly that homosexuality is a choice and the phenomenon of prison sex proves it, apologized for saying that, and said he won’t discuss gay rights any more.

This is the guy that CPAC participants think is the fourth best option to sit in the Oval Office as chief executive of the most powerful nation in the world come 2016.

140

[quote]Mufasa wrote:
Just to add to what BPC said.

In my opinion…beyond Hillary…the DEMS really have no-one. I don’t see Elizabeth Warren going much of anywhere…

And Joe Biden? Please. “Killer Joe” would probably stick his foot in his mouth 10 times just at his announcement to run.

What is sad is that even though the GOP has greater numbers running…their field is still awfully weak.

Again…this all should be very interesting.

Mufasa
[/quote]

If Biden makes a serious run, he will embarrass himself over and over. He can’t help it. He’s also getting progressively creepier with touchy-feely stuff when absolutely not appropriate. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/reliable-source/wp/2015/02/24/what-the-body-language-experts-have-to-say-about-john-travolta-and-joe-biden/)

I said earlier Paul Ryan would be a good candidate. But he probably knows it’s too much of an uphill battle to take down Hillary (just my speculation). His attitude and the way he conducts himself suggests presidential material. I think Jeb Bush is “presidential” too, but a lot of republicans don’t like him and people that don’t like him can attack him with the nepotism angle. Rand Paul I like a lot because it’s refreshing to see someone present bold ideas and talk to people like they’re not children. But he doesn’t have that presidential feel, and he’s flipped a few times (but who has not?). You’re right, will be interesting.

Many people, including myself, have said the republican field is weak. But it’s probably a better list of candidates than last time, IMO. Baby steps I suppose.